tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Thu Aug 18 14:19:44 1994

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: <Hol wIja'chuq>

>And when you look at it in this light, *none* of our "instincts" are any 
>good, because none of us is tlhIngan, really.

Well, there you go. But saying /none/ of our instincts are /any/ good is
taking it just a trite too far. Saying, where our instincts don't correspond
on a point where information is insufficient to logically prove that one of
us is correct, is much more the way to go, as was the case with ~mark and
Qanqor.

[...]

> "There are a few verbs whose meanings include locative notions, 
>such as <ghoS> "approch, proceeed".  The locative suffix neeed not be 
>used on nouns which are the objects of such verbs."  (TKD, p. 28)

>Unfortunately, we don't have a list of what those verbs *are*, other 
>that <ghoS>.  In light of that, I think most of us, myself included, tend 
>to play it safe... especially when we think about the sentence after the 
>examples following the paragraph quoted above:

> "If the locative suffix is used with such verbs, the resulting 
>sentence is somewhat redundant, but not out-and-out wrong."

Good point. Tacking {-Daq} on a noun before {qet}, {yIt}, {jaH}, etc., is
safe, and conservative. With {ghoS}, however, I must protest. {ghoS} looks as
transitive to me as {HoH}. That's not to say, never tack {-Daq} onto a noun
before {ghoS}; I'm not allowed to condemn such usage, being the non-god that
I am. But I can say that I *feel* that such usage is highly redundant (and
yet I grudgingly admit, it is still totally grammatical)..

>> There's just no room to argue. It's there in TKD. Plus, just to emphasize
my
>> point, {-Daq} on {pa'} (when it means "thereabouts"), {Dat}, and {naDev}
is
>> illegal. I would also venture that it's illegal on {vogh}, but don't bet
the
>> mortgage on it.

>You are absolutely right; those words cannot take -Daq.  I wouldn't bet 
>on <vogh>, either.  Until we get a specific example, I would still -Daq it.

Wellllll, I dunno. We both agree that the issue of whether {vogh} is allowed
to take {-Daq} is unresolved at this point. My opinion is that it is like its
brother, {naDev}, and wouldn't ever take {-Daq}, but again, I can't criticize
trI'Qal for thinking the opposite.


>> ><Hol wIja'chuq> is definitely ugly.  It is flat-out ungrammatical.  Yes, 
>> >I *know* <ja'chuq> is a seperate dictionary entry, but that doesn't 
>> >change the fact that what we have here is a verb with a type 1 
>> >attached... and the grammar, as we know it, doesn't allow wI- at the 
>> >beginning of such verbs.  Make sense?
>> 
>> Yeah yeah. It doesn't conform to perfect logic, but then.. I feel quite
>> acceptant of {Hol wIja'chuq}. It's rather colloquial (think of it, Klingon
>> slang now!), but it makes perfect sense to even novices in the language. I
>> personally find it more natural than the stiff {maja'chuqtaHvIS Hol wIqel}
or
>> some such. You see, if an American goes, "Lugnuts? We ain't got no more
>> lugnuts!", he/she/it is in no danger of confusing anyone. You see,
languages
>> work by what people understand. They most certainly do not have to conform
to
>> total logic, as any natural language will demonstrate in an instant.

>Yes, but you forget one thing:

>We don't have the authority to decide what is "slang" and what is not.  

I'm not suggesting we define every possible piece of Klingon slang that could
ever potentially exist. Where did that come from?! All I'm saying is that
this one particular construction looks colloquial, and by that I mean that it
is not entirely grammatically logical, but it is semantically clear and thus
informally acceptable. That is how I justify calling {Hol wIja'chuq} Klingon
slang.

>Come on!  You are saying that just because a word is listed in the KD, it 
>defies the laws of grammar we were given?  I suppose next you are going 

[interruption:] Whoa! Now, I'm not like some other people here. I realize
that {ja'chuq} is made up of the verb {ja'}+{-chuq}, and that its listing as
a separate entry in TKD doesn't prove jacksquat as far as its transitivity
status is concerned.

>to tell me I can say something like:

> ?jIHvaD lo'laHlaH taj?
> "The knife can be valuable for me"

Now this time you're getting me all wrong. I don't agree with this. Wofuer
halten Sie mich?-- einen Narr?!

>I don't think ANYONE is going to agree this is a viable construct.  *I* 
>certainly wouldn't!  And what you are doing is essentually the same 
>thing:  You are saying that because it happens to be listed seperately in 
>the KD, it is a WHOLE NEW WORD, and that it defies the rules we have been 
>given so far.

Ackptooie! You got the wrong guy, I tell ya! That ain't me! I don't think
that way!

>I don't buy it.

But ya gotta listen! I was framed, see?! Framed! Yeah, that's it! That's the
ticket!

>Unfortuantely, I don't have my tapes here with me to skim for an example 
>to support this.  If what you are saying is true, then we can have things 
>like <maja'chuqchuq>  "we discuss each other".  Sorry, *MY* KD sez I can 
>only have **ONE** of each verb suffix type on each verb.  And this sure 
>as HELL looks like it is in violation of this rule to me.

>Why don't we just start letting people say <ramvam HIpong>  "call me 
>tonight" and get it over with???

Augh! NOW YOU'RE CALLING ME A PROECHELIST!!! That does it, trI'Qal! You fire
up your rusty pile of bolts, lIy So' and meet me just outside of
UpperSandusky (midway of Lexington and Toledo) at the break of dawn. I'll be
waiting with all my loyal Guidos right behind me. Right, Guidos?!!

<10000 Guidos shout in unison their rallying cry>

>--tQ

After the war, we'll discuss it over a delicious mound of qagh and a couple
tall mugs of Romulan Ale.

>-- 
>HaghtaHbogh tlhIngan yIvoqQo'!  toH, qatlh reH HaghtaH HoD >Qanqor...?

>--HoD trI'Qal  Captain T'rkal  ---------------------
>  tlhwD lIy So'  IKV Hidden Comet |   [email protected]

BTW, one night a while back I was anagramming around and, taking the name
{Qanqor}, came up with the not totally grammatical {qornaQ}, a long probe
used to root thru garbage.

You're next, "Seqram"!!!


Guido#1, Leader of All Guidos
& <Master of Anagrams>qoq

PS: My memorable phrase of the week: {HeghtaH HonwI' 'ej HaghtaH HarwI'}.
ThanQ, you've been a beautiful audience, enjoy the rest of the show!

Back to archive top level